syncthing_disk_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that: it does not say whether events are streamed, polled, buffered, or how limit/since/timeout affect behavior, which are exactly the traits an agent needs for this endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. Two words carry no informational value and are not front-loaded around any actionable content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter, zero-coverage tool with no output schema and a large sibling family, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent with no basis for selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no default-help beyond field titles; the description mentions none of them. limit, since, events, fields, timeout, and instance are left entirely unexplained in both structured and unstructured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

'Disk events.' is effectively a restatement of the tool name with no verb, no scope, and no indication of what a 'disk event' contains or how it differs from the sibling syncthing_events or syncthing_local_changes. An agent cannot distinguish this from other event-related tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, what problem it solves, or how it relates to the numerous sibling tools. No alternatives or conditions are mentioned at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.